So far, all I'm getting is that the only reasons against allowing gay marriages are religious prejudice. snip

In a nearby thread, a wise person posted a chart showing US gun murder rates and how they are all out of line with comparable countries. Might have surprised some.

I think some would be surprised to see a comparable chart for "religious fervor" with the US high on the list and comparable countries far down. With crackpots in Florida announcing Koran burnings in their church yards and presidential politicians competing for piety priority, you gotta wonder if all the extremists are in the Taliban.

Ben

Edited by Peter Parts (04/24/1208:58 AM)

_________________________
R1100S, 1999 (don't know much about other models)Riding 52 years but only last 47 on BMW boxersBike writings: http://www.tinyurl.com/6bvt23(includes a 6400 mile trip, 20 days, with wife to LA)

I am aware of this position taken up by black people in California, and i am both shocked and ashamed.

I am all for a church or a religion having their own independent views, but those views should only apply to their members, not to those who are not a part of that faith. Churches are independent from secular society, and secular society ought to be independent from church. So if the question is, "what are the rights if gay Americans?". My answer is that they are exactly the same as that if everyone else in America. If the question is, "what are the rights of gay Americans within a religious institution, my answer us, "thats between that religious institution and gay Americans".

I can't see any substantial difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriages, or other forms of marriage that would raise people's hackles even more. Heck, gay marriage raises people's hackles, so that's just another similarity, not a distinguishing point. I'm not against gay marriage; I just like to follow things to their logical conclusion.

_________________________
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. ~Einstein

James, I assume you were playing devil's advocate, as it Mr. Harvey. The answer is, in this case, very simple: ALL of these arguments - IDENTICAL arguments - were used during Jim Crow segregation to argue against black and white intermarriage. Biblical references, bestiality, polygamy, and all the rest. ALL the same. EXACTLY the same!

So rather than ask these questions (you forgot bestiality when you mentioned polygamy) ask yourself this: Why is this any different than Jim Crow?

We've been through this before. We admit we were wrong then, by and large, as a nation. And yet, here we are again, doing the same exact thing. Again.

You want to talk about a plank in the black eye? Did you know that during the recently-fought Prop 8 in California (the state initiative re gay marriage) that religious black folk were the most solid demographic to vote against allowing gays to marry. More solid than registered party members of the party which you'd expect to oppose....

Funny how history's forgotten, and how we're unfortunately doomed to repeat it.

-MKL

Moshe, I was sincere. What about three people? [ancient Hebrews had more than one wife] That's a far cry from bestiality. And tell us, what is that you've found in the Hebrew scriptures that condones homosexuality? Seriously, I'd like to know.

OK, if you're sincere.

With regard to 3 people, it's irrelevant. It's a "slippery slope" argument and red herring. Nobody is talking about polygamy at this stage, are they? So what does it have to do with this, other than the usual "slippery slope" - and voters of your ideology will soon be asked to stand behind a man whose religion specifically condones (or condoned) polygamy. Will they do it? So I guess we'll find out how the country feels about that soon enough.

Re the Old Testament I have not found anything that CONDONES homosexuality. I never said anything CONDONED it. I said that book is used as the justification for much of the anti-gay fervor today. That is the JEWISH bible. Jews wrote it. And today, more than any other voting block in this country, we vote for the full civil rights of gay Americans. And today, in the sea of backwards religious fanaticism that is the Middle East, it is Israel that allows full right to gay citizens, including hosting many gay events and parades. That's in a country that has a strong religious voice as part of its parliament.

My point is, the authors of the book cited as the basis for this discrimination are telling the readers, "THAT'S NOT HOW YOU READ THIS BOOK." They say this not in words, but in action. How they vote, and how they act.

So far, all I'm getting is that the only reasons against allowing gay marriages are religious prejudice. Hard to believe you can stir up so much of the population against something based on bigoted feelings. Are there really no rational, pragmatic reasons?

I don't know, but I feel like I'm being herded down a path without all the information. Kinda like fighting the Civil War based on slavery without knowing the economic and Constitutional reasons as well.

----

First, regardless of how certain among us may feel, there are strong strictures against homosexuality in many religions and many believe it reflects a chosen path of immorality.

Those who oppose gay marriage tend to believe that permitting it further diminishes the sanctity of traditional marriage, an institution that's been suffering of late. They also argue that the assumptions accompanying state-sanctioned state marriage of gay individuals--especially the notion that the partner of an employee would be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual partners--adds to the financial burdens of employers. This, it is argued, may be an affront to the religious beliefs of employers. Also--and I don't think the amount of money involved is inconsiderable--if gay marriages are accorded full equality, a whole range of government entitlements traditionally accorded only to husbands and wives--think, for instance, Social Security survivor benefits--would be payable to one's gay partner in marriage.

I think, in fairness to those of the opposing viewpoint, one has to concede that if full equality under the law is recognized for gay marriage, the financial repercussions could be very substantial.

James, I assume you were playing devil's advocate, as it Mr. Harvey. The answer is, in this case, very simple: ALL of these arguments - IDENTICAL arguments - were used during Jim Crow segregation to argue against black and white intermarriage. Biblical references, bestiality, polygamy, and all the rest. ALL the same. EXACTLY the same!

So rather than ask these questions (you forgot bestiality when you mentioned polygamy) ask yourself this: Why is this any different than Jim Crow?

We've been through this before. We admit we were wrong then, by and large, as a nation. And yet, here we are again, doing the same exact thing. Again.

You want to talk about a plank in the black eye? Did you know that during the recently-fought Prop 8 in California (the state initiative re gay marriage) that religious black folk were the most solid demographic to vote against allowing gays to marry. More solid than registered party members of the party which you'd expect to oppose....

Funny how history's forgotten, and how we're unfortunately doomed to repeat it.

-MKL

Moshe, I was sincere. What about three people? [ancient Hebrews had more than one wife] That's a far cry from bestiality. And tell us, what is that you've found in the Hebrew scriptures that condones homosexuality? Seriously, I'd like to know.

OK, if you're sincere.

With regard to 3 people, it's irrelevant. It's a "slippery slope" argument and red herring. Nobody is talking about polygamy at this stage, are they? So what does it have to do with this, other than the usual "slippery slope" - and voters of your ideology will soon be asked to stand behind a man whose religion specifically condones (or condoned) polygamy. Will they do it? So I guess we'll find out how the country feels about that soon enough.

Re the Old Testament I have not found anything that CONDONES homosexuality. I never said anything CONDONED it. I said that book is used as the justification for much of the anti-gay fervor today. That is the JEWISH bible. Jews wrote it. And today, more than any other voting block in this country, we vote for the full civil rights of gay Americans. And today, in the sea of backwards religious fanaticism that is the Middle East, it is Israel that allows full right to gay citizens, including hosting many gay events and parades. That's in a country that has a strong religious voice as part of its parliament.

My point is, the authors of the book cited as the basis for this discrimination are telling the readers, "THAT'S NOT HOW YOU READ THIS BOOK." They say this not in words, but in action. How they vote, and how they act.

-MKL

Thank you.

Three people wanting to marry is relevant in the same way two homosexuals wanting to marry is relevant, they are both outside the norm of marriage yet they both want to be sanctioned as "married."

I understand your view of the scriptures as a guide rather than a rule book and I understand your view that your religious leaders have said its OK, so to the masses its OK. I disagree with your views but that's just how us right wing Bible Thumpers roll.

I'm still unclear on this statement though

Quote:

I can tell you as a Hebrew speaker, you would be downright shocked if you saw how even the translation of our Bible to english language skewed certain meanings terribly. This is one of those times, and it's why we (the ones who created the Bible which is now referenced by everyone except us in this issue) never envoke it outside of fundamentalist relgious circles.

What is it in the translation from Hebrew to English that changed the meaning of Leviticus 18:22? Are the surrounding incest and bestiality scriptures valid or have their meanings been mistranslated as well? Seriously.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that the proposed ban on gay marriage is utter and total BS.If there's a religious argument against it - then fine, let the 'church' who feels offended not recognize that marriage.But marriage has become for all intents and purposes a civil matter. If any pair of consenting adults wish to get married, that is their right. For the government to take that right away is absolutely wrong.

There are pairings that are viewed by the narrow-minded as 'wrong' while legally completely valid.An old man and young woman. (Or even worse, the other way around!)Mixed race couples get grief from bigots all the time.Handicapped/healthy couples are likewise subject to discrimination.Inter-faith marriages, not as bad as they used to be, but still frowned on in many places.

I know happy, loving couples in all of these categories. And as long as their commitment to one another is true, I see no reason why the general public should condemn those relationships. Likewise with same-sex couples - it's nobody's damn business but the two in the relationship. If people have made a life-time commitment to one another, it doesn't (shouldn't) make any difference in the eyes of the law their age, race, religion, national origin, handicapped status, or sexual orientation.

The real answer, if you want to "apply separation of religion and government to this act," is to make ALL marriage a religious ceremony without civil recognition, and vice-versa. Frankly, I'd submit that it's simpler to recognize that marriage is something that practically ALL people (religious or not) subscribe to, and not try to impose constraints about who can or can't get married, based on the principles of one brand of religion.

Thank you very much for that, Leslie. I agree that the tyranny of the majority shouldn't enter into a civil rights issue. If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do. But I did think it funny that he thought it was okay for the majority to vote on making one per cent of the population pay more tax than everyone else. Seems like anytime we can separate out a segment of society we create discrimination.

-----

_________________________
Maybe a chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs.